Sex, Spice, and Small-Town Texas Justice: The Purple Zone Raid

A Rogue Prosecutor Makes the Drug War Personal

On the morning of May 7, 2014, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) launched Project Synergy Phase II, a national "day of raids" in 29 states, with the goal of taking down purveyors of synthetic drugs who funnel their proceeds to Middle Eastern terrorist organizations.

Tom Cochran

The Purple Zone, a smoke shop in Alpine, Texas, owned by 29-year-old Ilana Lipsen, was the target of one of these raids. This particular raid was so heavy handed and its aftermath so clumsily handled by law enforcement that it drew national attention as a symbol of police militarization and the vagaries of laws pertaining to drug "analogues." Analogues are chemicals that are not prohibited but are similar enough to controlled substances that they become illegal depending on who interprets the data.

Even worse, The Purple Zone and its owner may have been targeted because of the personal vendetta of a single prosecutor.

A Safe Little Town, Filled With Cops

Alpine, Texas has a population of a little more than 5,000 residents. It is quite literally in the middle of nowhere, more than 200 miles from El Paso, home to the nearest major airport, and 75 miles from Mexico. Because of the town's proximity to the border, it is classified as a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA), which along with the relative isolation, makes it an attractive home to a great many in law enforcement, including members of federal agencies such the DEA and the Border Patrol. Sul Ross State University, the town's signature institution, hosts a law enforcement academy.

Alpine evokes the Texas libertarian ethos of a quiet, safe town where you can expect to be left alone. It's what draws both bohemian artists as well as culturally conservative folks. How one feels about Ilana Lipsen and The Purple Zone represents the schism between the two camps.

"You either love me or you hate me," says Lipsen. "I've received anti-Semitic hate emails. I've been told to 'go back to Jew York.' I've had people come in my store and tell me it was 'fucked up" and that I was poisoning the youth of the town—even though I have a big sign that says '18 and Over' and I have an ID scanner. The bars here in Alpine don't have ID scanners, but I do!"

Originally from Houston, Lipsen arrived in Alpine in 2003, when she enrolled at Sul Ross University to pursue her interest in Arabian horses by studying equine science. Though she would leave school before graduating, she still loved the wide-open spaces of Alpine and decided to make it her home, purchasing a ranch for her horses and going into business for herself.

After antique furniture and pet supplies failed to keep her balance sheet in the black, she wracked her brain thinking about what was missing from the marketplace of this West Texas railroad town. The answer she came up with was sex toys and smoking accessories. And it worked. She called her store The Purple Zone, which thrives to this day thanks to a loyal, mostly college-aged consumer base interested in hookahs, vaporizing, and e-cigarattes.

Raids and Chemical Analogues

In March 2012, "10-12 men came in, SWAT team style" to the Purple Zone, Lipsen recalls. They told her she was not under arrest, but cuffed her and threw her in the back of a police van while they searched her store, seized personal property including computers, a cell phone, and hard drives. They also took numerous packets of what Lipsen sells as potpourri in the incense section of the store, adorned with the colorful brand names such as "Dr. Feelgood," "Scooby Snax" and "Bomb! Marley."

Brewster County District Attorney Rod Ponton insists these items are "spice," or synthetic cannabanoids. But Lipsen notes, "You can buy these products online or in any gas station or smoke shop in Texas." She says that she throws out anyone who insinuates these products are used for anything other than making your house smell good.

Eight months after the 2012 raid, police returned to arrest Lipsen and her mother, Rosa (who is not an owner or an employee of the store, but frequently visits to help clean the store and tend to her daughter's many pets) on felony charges of "possession and distribution of a controlled substance."

Though the the Alpine PD and the DEA would make many undercover purchases at the Purple Zone over the next two years, lab tests turned up no controlled substances except for "MAN-2201," "XLR-11," and "UR-144," all of which were legal in Texas at the time of the raid. In fact, they would only become illegal in January 2013 when the federal government's Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act, signed by President Obama in July 2012, went into effect.

The DEA insists the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986 affords them the power to prosecute possession of these substances because they are "similar to controlled substances." It is this enforcement of "analogues" that landed Lipsen with a felony indictment for products she believed to be legal.

That wasn't just her opinion. Lipsen spends thousands of dollars having all the products she sells lab-tested for controlled substances and has the documentation to prove it. Prosecutor Ponton also knows how expensive drug testing can be. In March 2014, he went before the Brewster County Board of Commissioners, pleading for thousands of dollars of funds for additional testing on the seized potpourri packets but was refused out of hand.

Out of resources but intent on proving Ilana Lipsen's criminality, he would find a willing partner in the DEA, an agency without his office's budget limitations.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

[City Attorney Mike] Gridley wrote that the city will
not prosecute legitimate nonprofit religious corporations,
associations, educational institutions, or societies or other
exempt organizations or anyone else as a result of their lawful
exercise of their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and
religion.

In addition to exempting those groups, Gridley wrote that the
anti-discrimination ordinance states that it "shall be construed
and applied in a manner consistent with First Amendment
jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of
religion."

When contacted by The Press for comment, Don Knapp said the
Hitching Post is not operating as a not-for-profit religious
corporation. He also said he does not know ADF Attorney David
Cortman.

The DEA did not respond to our requests for comment, but
Laila Rico, a representative from the DEA's El Paso office, told
the Alpine Avalanche, "If you don't do what you're asked to do,
that's what you're going to run into."

This article is infuriating. Alas, it is unlikely to generate
much debate in the commentariat as it is not about the majesty of
rand Paul, the totalitarian tendency of the government giving
someone, somewhere a subsidy to get an education or put solar
panels on their roof, or the splendor of the idea of giving
gazillionaires a tax cut. I thought in Texas of all places, where
politicians talk about big government, that the chances of a DEA
goon splintering your front door would be zero, but then there's
this.

Here's an idea for libertarians... Stop voting for right-wing
Tea Party reactionaries.

I'm a libertarian socialist so I view Obama as insufficiently
radical on both those terms. It should be said, in his defense,
that he did end the Iraq War, ended DOMA, and ended the bigoted
Don't Ask, Don't Tell policies.

By liberals, though, I was referring to people like peter
defazio, Jim McDermott, and deval Patrick-- just to name a few that
I admire.

Socialism, by its very definition, strips liberty from the
individual by way of force. Other than by engaging in Orwellian
double-speak I have no idea how you cognitively can connect
"libertarian" and "socialist."

It's someone that wants government to stay out of all personal
matters including all drug laws while maintaining that the
government should have a role in regulating the economy, enforcing
environmental laws, and building infrastructure. I'm also concerned
with vast inequities in wealth and think the government should pay
for all of the above through a redistributive income tax.

So you like the idea of stealing other people's property at the
point of a gun, you'd just rather the government do the dirty work
for you. I guess that's only "personal" to the people you're
stealing from.

The "economy" is the aggregate of what individuals do with their
money; this is incredibly personal (and sometimes involves drugs
and the bedroom). All things you mention involve personal acts done
with personal property. You want to fund this by
stealing money from one group who has "too much"
(because they earned it or stole it through governmental
misuse).

You cannot separate "personal issues" and economic ones. Go tell
someone that you don't like his choice in Chevy or Ford (or Honda)
for proof.

It's someone that wants government to stay out of allsome personal matters including all drug laws
while maintaining that the government should have a role in
regulating the economy, enforcing environmental laws, and
building infrastructureother personal
matters.

Did I mention that as a socialist I enjoy overwrought arguments
by right- wingers about how taxation equals theft? You mean people
who cheat on their taxes end up going to jail (usually after a
decade or so of procedural pretty-pleasing). Poor them. Poor cliven
bundy. He's such a victim.

Did I mention that as a socialist I enjoy overwrought
arguments by right- wingers about how taxation equals theft? You
mean people who cheat on their taxes end up going to jail (usually
after a decade or so of procedural pretty-pleasing). Poor them.
Poor cliven bundy. He's such a victim.

Yes, there is nothing theft-like about people taking 50% of
someone's income and then using that money to give it all to other
people.

How is that stealing? Like, if I came and took your wallet
because the government said it was okay, it's only fair that you go
to jail if you don't give me your wallet. After all, everything the
government says is moral is moral. Only teathuglicans think
differently!

I think it's amazing that people like you think flat out
stealing from one person and giving to another is moral provided
51% of people think it's okay.

These two words cannot be a single term. Here's why: The
foundation of Libertarian ideology is that of voluntarism and that
the initiation of force is immoral. On the other hand, socialism
requires the initiation of force.

Trouble is, the police unions are in the Democrats' camp along
with those liberals. And they loves them some Drug War.

I sympathize with the Purple Zone folks, and it sucks that they
had to buckle under the heel of these mafiosos. But until we can
kick all the law-and-order and religious-nut Republicans out of the
Legislature, I'm afraid our wonderful state is a lost cause.

I would love to see an actual statistical analysis between the
GOP who are law-and-order and religious ("nuts" as you call them,
kind of unnecessarily). I would wager that they aren't even
correlated that much...

The most onerous GOP I can think of only mention their...
beliefs would be too strong a word... when it's election time.

Then again, there's Santorum... I really can't stand him or his
accolades. I point out he voted to use taxpayers' money to fund
Planned Parenthood and they actually defend him.
Disgusting.

Liberals like FDR, who supported the Uniform State Narcotic Drug
Act and the Marihuana Transfer Tax Act?

Or liberals like Bill Clinton, who signed the National Narcotics
Leadership Act establishing the ONDCP, and presided over an
increase in drug enforcement arrests (from wiki "In the 1980s,
while the number of arrests for all crimes had risen by 28%, the
number of arrests for drug offenses rose 126%")?

It's pretty interesting that right-wingers have to come up with
a Leftist president who died in office in 1945 and a "Southern
leadership council" Democrat to support the thesis that liberals
and Leftists are drug war nanny staters. Call me unconvinced. I
hang around lots of liberals. Not one of them thinks we should
punish people that smoke pot. I think its fine if you want to smoke
crack. Not my business.

There's a Democratically sponsored bill on congress right now
that can't get outside of committee in a Republican controlled
House. Maybe you guys are just too carried away that someone is
getting a Welfare check somewhere to pay attention.

You seem to be mixing up liberal citizens with "liberal and
Leftists" politicians. And while I'd say that 70% of the R
politicians are against decriminalizing recreational drugs, there
are few in the Democratic ranks who support it.

From my perspective, most politicians in both parties don't want
to legalize drugs, because it reduces their power. Power they'd
like to use for their personal reasons against others such as women
who've rejected their advances.

yes, yes in the pure meaning of the word. In common American
though liberal = progressive. It's a battle that was lost a
loonnggg time ago, and while I'd like to reclaim the original
meaning of liberal doing so depends on society at large and not
likely to happen. Especially when progressives will start calling
themselves liberal now that the public is onto the progressive
scam.

Which Liberals? The Democrats who have been just as happy to
play the Law N' Order card to their working class constituents
every chance they get? The Obama administration, which insists on
attempting to carry on the War On Drugs in States that have given
it up?

There are rank-and-file types on the Left who are for
legalization, but the Democrat Political Class is about evenly
divided between the "whatever gets me elected" and actual
fascists.

I'm not saying that ANY other parties are better, at least here.
But on the War On Drugs the Democrats have the moral stature of
slime mold … and on a lot of other subjects.

Seems I recall one very progressive, liberal Democrat William
Randolph Hearst having a big in stirring up anti-drug paranoia in
the very beginning. When one considers, as the article stated, much
of the young lady in the article's misery has resulted from a 2012
bill signed into law by the ultra-liberal messiah residing at 1600
Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC, and taking into account the
very long, unbroken lineage of rabid liberal drug warriors from
there all the way back to Hearst and the beginnings, one can only
assume you're either trolling or about as ignorant as they
come.

"Why not start voting for liberals, who have opposed the drug
war from the beginning."

Perhaps you can name one liberal who supports decriminalizing
the use of drugs to support your allegation?

I can name a faction that supports this, the libertarians and
libertarian leaning Republicans. From what I see, liberals support
more government, just like Obama/Holder support raids of medical
marijuana clinics when Obama said he wouldn't. You apparently
believe what they say, rather than what they do.

You're right. No one on this site has ever commented on the
atrocities of the WoD, the regular affronts to the Fourth Amendment
or the way due process is circumvented through abusive prosecution,
overcharging and the plea bargain process.

And you think this is the central focus of people in the
Republican Party, who have been telling people for the last 40
years that they want to get the government off people's back?

There are plenty of people who call themselves libertarians who
buy that bullshit. Maybe it's time for them to start demanding some
results or, at the very least, start getting incredulous looks from
people who care about limiting government when they say that voting
for Republicans is about promoting liberty.

I really don't see that, it seems like most of the commentators
here are just extreme Republicans. I am amazed by how little
discussion there is of actually electing Libertarian party
candidates. I don't believe any one who operates under a major
party label has the independence to really, and consistently,
govern as a Libertarian. Most of the commentators here sound like
Bill O' Reily or some jerk like that

I really don't see that, it seems like most of the
commentators here are just extreme Republicans.

Yeah, extreme Republicans who consistently advocate the end of
the drug war, the legalization of prostitution, and are generally
non-interventionist in foreign policy.

Since those are all Republican positions, you've got us. This
reminds me of when a conservative came on here and claimed I was a
leftist for saying mean things about the police. If actual
Republicans call me a leftist, it's a pretty good sign that I'm not
an arch-Republican.

* Small, powerful, non-interventionist military.
* End corporate welfare (particularly for financial
institutions.)
* Open, though controlled, borders.
* Pro-choice.
* Pro Gay marriage, "thrupple" marriages, line-marriages, group
marriages, etc. (I'll approve it as quickly as you can think of a
name.)
* End the drug war.
* Decriminalize posession of controlled substances.
* Legalize (and allow to self-regulate) prostitution.
* End subsidies for professional sports teams.
* Demlitarize the police and all of the other paramilitary
governmental organizations.
* Term limits across the board, and short ones
* Legalize most of the "big scarry" drugs.

Wait -- this isn't going like KissAss above said it would. Now
I'm confused.

You're conflating the points in your original post. You said
that the article "is unlikely to generate much debate in the
commentariat as it is not about the majesty of rand Paul, the
totalitarian tendency of the government giving someone, somewhere a
subsidy to get an education or put solar panels on their roof, or
the splendor of the idea of giving gazillionaires a tax cut."

I refuted your ridiculous position by pointing out the issues
raised in this article are RED FUCKING MEAT for the "commentariat"
at Reason.

Please. WTF does this have to do with "tea party reactionaries?"
This Ponton dude is a thug. Us right wing guys are all about less,
smaller government. It is unconscionable that a small business
owner , doing everything she knows to do to stay within the bounds
of the law should be hammered by the DA in conjunction with the
DEA. You are illogically smearing conservative people. What crawled
up you and died?

kwitcherbellyakin and respond yourself. Arsenic in bulk isn't
too hard to find, which takes care of the dude's horses. For a
tenth the amount the court appointed attorney is charging she can
hire from El Paso a Mexican beating of the fuck so severe he'll eat
from a straw for two months.

I have one problem with this article, and it is tangental to the
story; the quote about "a small town paper's job"

I'm sorry, but a small town paper's job is to sell advertising,
thereby making money, or to disseminate the bias of whoever is
supporting it while it loses money. The idea that "Journalists"
have some higher calling to The Truth is so much bilge, as the
current crop of Obama sycophants in the media clearly demonstrate.
I acknowledge that the author did not say that bit himself; he just
quoted it with implied approval.

No paper is EVER free of bias. If it hasn't the bias of its
owner, then it has the biases of its editors, reporters, and so
forth. Anybody who believes that any media outlet is free of bias
is too naive to be allowed out in the big wide world without a
keeper, and probably believes that PBS at some time "kept the
networks honest"… and in the Easter Bunny.

He claimed he could accomplish this theft for 500 k a year ago.
Legal bills are already over a million and since the city is liable
for all legal fees in these proceedings we are on the hook for far
more. He's fucking with the Carlyle Group and their 2 grand an hour
lawyers haven't even gotten close to entering the fray. I'll be
laughing when this walrus get's bitch slapped and his proggy
minions get hit in the wallet. Sadly lots of fixed income seniors
home owners will be fucked by his chutzpah.

Not ironically, said "cd" used to have the same job at the afore
mentioned local rag. Investment advice, stay away from Lee
Enterprises, their bankruptcy is only a matter of time.

That's puzzled me also. How is it that states populated with
individuals who (outwardly at least) embody an aura of self
determination and self dependency succumb to the liberal fucks that
move in for the view?

It seems very unlikely that the purpose of protecting free
speech and freedom of the press was to create a high-priesthood of
holy journalists to aid their masters in achieving absolute control
over we politically unconnected commoners.

“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat,
populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never
basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who
want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The
former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest
good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons,
suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable
neighbors than the other sort.”

"According to the American Civil Liberties Union, for-profit
wedding chapels that turn away gay couples could be charged with a
misdemeanor. The organization explained exceptions to the law only
apply to religious institutions. “The difference between a church
and a place of worship and a wedding chapel is that a wedding
chapel is a business so that is covered under the Public
Accommodations Law of Nevada,” Tod Story of the ACLU told News
8."

Laws like these violate free speech rights. And anti
discrimination laws generally should be struck down as violating a
substantive due process right of free association that would treat
religious and the non religious equally in their associations.

The religious conservatives didn't pass these laws - it's not as
if they sat around saying, "let's require all the secular people to
recognize same-sex unions while giving ourselves an exemption!"

They would love to have these laws repealed altogether - but
until the public gets enlightened on this, religious dissenters
will at least want to take advantage of laws giving them "special
privileges" - laws like the First Amendment.

The First Amendment establishes a regime of freedom for the
religious - including nontheists whose belief system can be
considered religious.

We seem to agree that many of these laws, as applied to
non-religious people, are wrong or unconstitutional. But telling
the religious to wait until the seculars get their rights means,
IMHO, ignoring the First Amendment.

But it doesn't seem to have frowned on the militia and
conscsiription laws which exempted religious pacifists from
military service. Under your reasoning, the Establishment Clause
would require Quakers, Mennonites, etc. to be drafted whenever
there's a draft.

I think the differences are explained at least in part in
Scalia's opinion in Smith (which talked about how the 1st Amendment
Free Exercise Clause being limited comports with our history of
occasional legislative exemptions in areas like CO's)

I see selective tax breaks as at least potentially problematic.
YMMV of course.

I'll end by saying this, it's the exact same thing I tell gays
pushing to be included in non discrimination laws: apart from the
philosophical issues, do you really think it's good for your group
to be seen as pushing for special treatment? I'm partly opposed to
a two tiered legal system for religious people and the non
religious because I think it will ultimately foster animosity
towards the religious and a sense of entitlement in them. As a
religious person mysel I don't like either.

Well, I'll just conclude by saying that the religious better get
accustomed to being disliked.

"If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all
men." (Rom. 12:18)

But sometimes there are people who don't want to live in peace,
but to tell you how to practice your religion. I'd say lovingly
protest in hopes of being permitted to live peaceably, or even to
familiarize other people with the tenets of one's religion.
Teachable moment.

"...chapels are public accommodations and have to follow the
public accommodation law, [Clark County Clerk Diana] Alba
said....

"Reno resident and licensed minister George Flint, who has been
performing weddings for 53 years, said those licensed by counties
to perform weddings have to follow the law. He suggested that
minsters who do not do so could have their licenses potentially
voided for failing to perform same-sex marriages."

This kind of thing increasingly makes me think civil marriage
should be totally divorced from religious (or non religious)
ceremonies. If ministers don't want to be held to the standards of
civil license issuers they shouldn't be doing that.

Bo's solution is fine with me. Let everyone go to the courthouse
and file a marriage and as a separate issue let people conduct
marriage ceremonies however they see fit. People won't
automatically have a civil union as a consequence of a religious
marriage ceremony and visa versa.

I've thought that as well; close though, he seems to
have done some research.

Not enough. He gets basic biographical facts about dumpster
completely wrong. I always believed that dumpster wasn't actually a
cop, just a toady with a badge fetish, but he was really
consistent. It's pretty obvious this is just a dumpster
impersonator.

The fact that he has conspicuously avoided the cop
shoots/beats/tazes people/dog/child threads since his arrival is a
dead giveaway. Dumpster was on those threads like stink on
shit.

My roomate's aunt makes $71 /hour on the laptop . She has been
out of a job for six months but last month her income was $12021
just working on the laptop for a few hours.
You can try this out. ✫✫✫✫✫ www.jobsfish.com

I will stand in for him: Reason, stop posting articles
with old comments in them. Just DELETE the old comments and post
the article. Is that hard? I will seriously re-consider donating to
you guys again if you can't even do this for us.

my best friend's step-aunt makes $67 hourly on the internet .
She has been fired from work for 9 months but last month her check
was $20596 just working on the internet for a few hours. you can
try this out.............
➜➜➜➜➜ http://www.netjob70.com

my best friend's mother-in-law makes $68 /hour on the computer .
She has been fired for 10 months but last month her payment was
$15958 just working on the computer for a few hours. view it
now.......
➜➜➜➜➜http://www.netjob70.com

I lived in Alpine for 7 years and was briefly married to Rod Ponton. While married to Ponton and for a short time before, I was addicted to cocaine. On September 2, 2011, Ponton, the city attorney for Alpine, lied to the cops, telling them that we hadn't spoken in over 24 hours,that he was concerned for my safety and instructed officers to check on me at my friend's house. Ponton and I had spoken less than an hour before he called the cops. The cops surrounded the home, handcuffed and detained my friend and I. THEN one of the Sheriff's deputies called someone to request a search warrant. My friend and I were made to wait, handcuffed outside, while the warrant was prepared and brought over. Once officers had the warrant they searched the home and my friend and I were arrested.

In my experienve Ponton uses the law to get revenge. Ponton could have helped me seek treatment, he preferred to have me arrested, humiliating me and my children. I went treatment and Ponton wrote my psychologist claiming horrible things about my character. Having known and treated me for a month before telling me of Ponton's letter, my psychologist commented that anyone who would attempt to undermine the drug treatment of another person is unethical.

I believe Ponton manipulated any resource possible to go after Ilana and shut down her store. Ponton hated the store from its beginning. In my opinion Ponton doesn't worry about collateral damage; Ponton cares about revenge more than justice.

I lived in Alpine for 7 years and was briefly married to Rod Ponton. While married to Ponton and for a short time before, I was addicted to cocaine. On September 2, 2011, Ponton, the city attorney for Alpine, lied to the cops, telling them that we hadn't spoken in over 24 hours,that he was concerned for my safety and instructed officers to check on me at my friend's house. Ponton and I had spoken less than an hour before he called the cops. The cops surrounded the home, handcuffed and detained my friend and I. THEN one of the Sheriff's deputies called someone to request a search warrant. My friend and I were made to wait, handcuffed outside, while the warrant was prepared and brought over. Once officers had the warrant they searched the home and my friend and I were arrested.

In my experienve Ponton uses the law to get revenge. Ponton could have helped me seek treatment, he preferred to have me arrested, humiliating me and my children. I went treatment and Ponton wrote my psychologist claiming horrible things about my character. Having known and treated me for a month before telling me of Ponton's letter, my psychologist commented that anyone who would attempt to undermine the drug treatment of another person is unethical.

I believe Ponton manipulated any resource possible to go after Ilana and shut down her store. Ponton hated the store from its beginning. In my opinion Ponton doesn't worry about collateral damage; Ponton cares about revenge more than justice.

I lived in Alpine for 7 years and was briefly married to Rod Ponton. While married to Ponton and for a short time before, I was addicted to cocaine. On September 2, 2011, Ponton, the city attorney for Alpine, lied to the cops, telling them that we hadn't spoken in over 24 hours,that he was concerned for my safety and instructed officers to check on me at my friend's house. Ponton and I had spoken less than an hour before he called the cops. The cops surrounded the home, handcuffed and detained my friend and I. THEN one of the Sheriff's deputies called someone to request a search warrant. My friend and I were made to wait, handcuffed outside, while the warrant was prepared and brought over. Once officers had the warrant they searched the home and my friend and I were arrested.

In my experienve Ponton uses the law to get revenge. Ponton could have helped me seek treatment, he preferred to have me arrested, humiliating me and my children. I went treatment and Ponton wrote my psychologist claiming horrible things about my character. Having known and treated me for a month before telling me of Ponton's letter, my psychologist commented that anyone who would attempt to undermine the drug treatment of another person is unethical.

I believe Ponton manipulated any resource possible to go after Ilana and shut down her store. Ponton hated the store from its beginning. In my opinion Ponton doesn't worry about collateral damage; Ponton cares about revenge more than justice